Compilation of Civ 7 suggestions I have collected from Reddit:

[Ronaldo_]

MAP

• Add Globe Map, or at least a map that loops around on all axes

• Better, larger TESL

AI

• Smarter AI engine, Victory focused AI. Perhaps with machine learning

• Difficulty effects AI intelligence rather than its material advantages

Removals & Major Overhauls

• No world congress

• No leader agendas. Revert back to stat based leader behavior

• Complete rework of religion. Should be much simpler and focus on spreading similarly to loyalty to provide benefits to you rather than a combat minigame that is disconnected from the rest of the game. Many people request getting rid of the victory condition altogether

• In general, remove overcomplex systems that don't align with the main core gameplay. These not only overcomplicate things for players, but also make the AI much worse as well

Combat Changes

• Barbarian difficulty toggle

• Allow naval units to navigate rivers

• More incentives to use Navies. Allow Naval melees to attack and capture landlocked cities if they have a harbor

• More incentives to use Melee and Anti-Calvalry units, especially for city combat

• More interesting lategame

• Longer early eras

• Spies should be actual moveable noncombat units with high movement that can't be detected by default, and should be upgraded from scouts so that scouts have some midgame purpose

• Ability to claim unoccupied land, which enables your military units to fight any other civ who places military in that area without either of you having to go to full out war

Economy Changes

• Economic Victory (most suggestions for this don't sound very good)

• More indepth trade system (both with traders & leader trading). Make your wellbeing more dependent on foreign trade. Make it so menu trading with another civ requires a finished route between both of you. Allow military units to perform blockades of trade routes

• Bring back puppet option for cities from Civ 5, allowing AI to manage the city while granting you its benefits

• Actual bridges that allow land units to cross water.

• More complex alliances. Multi-civ alliances

• Ability to trade tiles

• Keep districts

• Continue to encourage expansion and competition over land unlike 5, but create more civs that incentivize playing tall

• To avoid micromanaging, allow mass clusters of cities to be converted into provinces

Leaders

• Bring back duo man & woman leaders from Civ 2

• Bring back dynamic leader screens from Civ 5

• More iconic leaders. ex: Napoleon and Joan of Arc for France, rather than people like Catherine de Medici. "Curveball" leaders should instead come in the form of famous leaders of lesser historically renown nations (like Simon Bolivar of Gran Colombia)

• Leaders playstyles should range from quite different from one another (like most of Civ 6) to very very different from one another (like Venice from Civ 5)

UI

• More Data: Bring back map replay. Display multiplayer graphs of the most played civs and which ones have the highest win rates.

• Artstyle can remain cartoony, but if so should be a more attractive or better looking art style

Multiplayer:

• More "Multiplayer friendly" (idk what this means)

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Bring back duo man & woman leaders from Civ 2

Ugh no. Not every 'civ' had good or iconic female leaders, so that would just lead to the complaint of non-iconic leaders that you go on to make, to say nothing of the fact that it reduces the possible number of leader and civ slots.

More iconic leaders. ex: Napoleon and Joan of Arc for France, rather than people like Catherine de Medici. "Curveball" leaders should instead come in the form of famous leaders of lesser historically renown nations (like Simon Bolivar of Gran Colombia)

Also no. You do realise that Catherine de Medici actually ruled over the French state and held political power, unlike Jeanne d'Arc?

Also if we accept the rule of 'iconic leaders only' we end up with the same faces every iteration of the game. So we would not have very good leaders (who would not be considered 'iconic' for one reason or another) (e.g. Selim I, Frederick II Hohenstaufen) or just very interesting characters (Nabonidus, Nezahualcoyotl etc.)

 

[pokiehl]

I disagree with many of these ideas. For one, I don’t get how religion could be any simpler than it already is. It’s already quite basic.

I also think a lot of them are misguided: AI improved by machine learning? How? No videogame has ever done that. Some commenters seem to think there’s a big red “machine learning” button developers can press but don’t.

 

[_hero_]

• Difficulty effects AI intelligence rather than its material advantages

Sounds great. Seems unlikely to happen.

• Keep districts

A massive overhaul is needed if they keep districts. Every city having the same 3 districts every game because there were clearly superior districts is a major reason why the game felt so repetitive to some. If districts are to remain, they need to not be so tightly limited by population. They need to not be such a significant source of everything compared to tiles as this made large cities irrelevant. They need to have more buildings available, perhaps merging by 2-3 district types into 1.

• Bring back duo man & woman leaders from Civ 2

• More iconic leaders. ex: Napoleon and Joan of Arc for France, rather than people like Catherine de Medici. "Curveball" leaders should instead come in the form of famous leaders of lesser historically renown nations (like Simon Bolivar of Gran Colombia)

You can't have iconic leaders for every nation and have woman leaders for every nation. Many nations in Civ 6 struggle to even have 2 notable leaders to begin with. You can either have iconic leaders for every nation, or you can have diversity for every nation. Not both.

• Leaders playstyles should range from quite different from one another (like most of Civ 6) to very very different from one another (like Venice from Civ 5)

One of my least favorite things about Civ 5 and 6 was that too much of your playstyle was determined by your nation/leader choice. I hate these game-breaking abilities being determined at the loading screen. I am fine with them existing in the game. They used to come from wonders. I'd add more stuff in the game to create uniqueness to playthroughs and allow the player to pursue that by how they play the game, rather than having it be determined at the game setup screen. This creates a more compelling gameplay loop because you have the opportunity to shape your strategy around what happens in the game instead of being pigeonholed into a strategy because you picked a nation (like Venice in Civ 5) that can only play a certain way.

 

[pokiehl]

One of my least favorite things about Civ 5 and 6 was that too much of your playstyle was determined by your nation/leader choice. I hate these game-breaking abilities being determined at the loading screen. I am fine with them existing in the game. They used to come from wonders. I'd add more stuff in the game to create uniqueness to playthroughs and allow the player to pursue that by how they play the game, rather than having it be determined at the game setup screen. This creates a more compelling gameplay loop because you have the opportunity to shape your strategy around what happens in the game instead of being pigeonholed into a strategy because you picked a nation (like Venice in Civ 5) that can only play a certain way.

We already have this to a greater degree than any other civ game. There are in fact entirely too many ways to get bonuses.

Wonders, natural wonders, secret societies, corporations, policies, unique great people, governors, governments, government districts, eurekas, inspirations, pantheons, religion, city-state suzerain bonuses, golden age bonuses, alliance bonuses…what more can there possibly be? How is this not enough to “shape your strategy around what happens in the game?”

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

• More iconic leaders. ex: Napoleon and Joan of Arc for France, rather than people like Catherine de Medici. "Curveball" leaders should instead come in the form of famous leaders of lesser historically renown nations (like Simon Bolivar of Gran Colombia)

I didn't realize Simon Bolivar counted as a "curveball" leader.

A massive overhaul is needed if they keep districts. Every city having the same 3 districts every game because there were clearly superior districts is a major reason why the game felt so repetitive to some. If districts are to remain, they need to not be so tightly limited by population. They need to not be such a significant source of everything compared to tiles as this made large cities irrelevant. They need to have more buildings available, perhaps merging by 2-3 district types into 1.

More building choices for each district I would like. That way every Campus and Commerical Hub wouldn't necessarily feel the same.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

More Data: Bring back map replay. Display multiplayer graphs of the most played civs and which ones have the highest win rates.

This one I wholeheartedly agree with. I miss being able to look at how you've painted the map over the ages.

Also, sorry for just noticing right now, but welcome to CivFanatics!

 

[reddishrecue]

Sounds great. Seems unlikely to happen.


A massive overhaul is needed if they keep districts. Every city having the same 3 districts every game because there were clearly superior districts is a major reason why the game felt so repetitive to some. If districts are to remain, they need to not be so tightly limited by population. They need to not be such a significant source of everything compared to tiles as this made large cities irrelevant. They need to have more buildings available, perhaps merging by 2-3 district types into 1.


You can't have iconic leaders for every nation and have woman leaders for every nation. Many nations in Civ 6 struggle to even have 2 notable leaders to begin with. You can either have iconic leaders for every nation, or you can have diversity for every nation. Not both.

One of my least favorite things about Civ 5 and 6 was that too much of your playstyle was determined by your nation/leader choice. I hate these game-breaking abilities being determined at the loading screen. I am fine with them existing in the game. They used to come from wonders. I'd add more stuff in the game to create uniqueness to playthroughs and allow the player to pursue that by how they play the game, rather than having it be determined at the game setup screen. This creates a more compelling gameplay loop because you have the opportunity to shape your strategy around what happens in the game instead of being pigeonholed into a strategy because you picked a nation (like Venice in Civ 5) that can only play a certain way.

What I noticed is there are different play styles and strategies that one could adapt depending on the leader such as Lincoln or Lady Six Sky. These really contrast each other because of the plantation bonuses with the Maya and the plantation penalties with the Americans. Sticking to the same strategy over again will not be possible if you like to choose different leaders because of the different attributes that civilization has. I know there are other examples out there with other civilizations that you could change as well such as China and the walls. That by itself is so contrasted to other civilizations that you miss out. Strategy is so based on uniqueness in civilization 6.

 

[_hero_]

We already have this to a greater degree than any other civ game. There are in fact entirely too many ways to get bonuses.

Wonders, natural wonders, secret societies, corporations, policies, unique great people, governors, governments, government districts, eurekas, inspirations, pantheons, religion, city-state suzerain bonuses, golden age bonuses, alliance bonuses…what more can there possibly be? How is this not enough to “shape your strategy around what happens in the game?”

It isn't about the number of bonuses, but the quality of them and the timing of them. Most of the things you mentioned provide some small trivial buff, while your leader ability is often game-breaking. I'm saying we need fewer bonuses but the ones that exist throughout the gameplay should feel impactful. Some of the things you mentioned, like Secret Societies, can significantly shape the game but others like corporations can be completely ignored and you'd barely notice it. I'd rather the less impactful stuff be left to the civ/leader traits and the more impactful stuff be a result of reacting to in-game situations. This could also do much to help the late-game doldrums. If you get something game-breaking at turn 200, the game will feel fresh again at that point. If all the impactful stuff comes at the start of the game, not much that happens on turn 200 will feel significant.

 

[Malexander]

I disagree with many of these ideas. For one, I don’t get how religion could be any simpler than it already is. It’s already quite basic.

I also think a lot of them are misguided: AI improved by machine learning? How? No videogame has ever done that. Some commenters seem to think there’s a big red “machine learning” button developers can press but don’t.

You are incorrect. There are many games that have deep learning AI solutions playing the game. I don’t see a reason why this could not be implemented in Civilization. For comparison, Starcraft is a complicated RTS game and AlphaStar has been trained to play it with the same information a human player has. It would be an ideal solution and probably would reduce AI turn time overall significantly; which has always been a problem in Civ late game.

 

[pokiehl]

You are incorrect. There are many games that have deep learning AI solutions playing the game.

I am not incorrect. Can you name even just one that actually has deep learning AI implemented by the developers?

I don’t see a reason why this could not be implemented in Civilization.

By all means, have at it and report your progress.

For comparison, Starcraft is a complicated RTS game and AlphaStar has been trained to play it with the same information a human player has.

Alphastar is not the developer of StarCraft. You’re essentially talking about a mod. I’m talking about commercial implementation of deep learning AI in videogames, of which there are 0 cases.

 

[AffineConstant]

I am not incorrect. Can you name even just one that actually has deep learning AI implemented by the developers?

By all means, have at it and report your progress.

Alphastar is not the developer of StarCraft. You’re essentially talking about a mod. I’m talking about commercial implementation of deep learning AI in videogames, of which there are 0 cases.

For reference: Yes "Deep Learning" has been around in games for forever. Probably since Black and White (God Game) if not before, did you know the lead AI programmer there went on to found (the eventually Google) Deep Mind? Anyway, on to more pressing matters.

 

[pokiehl]

For reference: Yes "Deep Learning" has been around in games for forever. Probably since Black and White (God Game) if not before, did you know the lead AI programmer there went on to found (the eventually Google) Deep Mind? Anyway, on to more pressing matters.

Sorry, but that is not true.

Name one actual example of any machine-learning method being used to create a video game’s AI. You won’t be able to name any examples because there are none.

Claiming it’s “been around forever” doesn’t mean anything. It certainly wasn’t present in Black & White (released in 2002).

 

[Gorbles]

Globe maps are actually a lot harder than folks think they are. The tesselation doesn't work well when you need to break the map down into tiles which results in questionable axes nomatter the projection you decide on.

r.e. deep learning, the only game I'm aware of (editor's note: not an exhaustive list ) is Age of Empires IV, and the community is divided on whether the advertised machine learning is actually being applied. There is evidence for it in the game data, and with Microsoft's backing there's a greater-than-zero chance that it's vapourware vs. a standalone games publisher funding such a thing.

 

[GeneralZIft]

There's too many various ideas to discuss in just one thread

But I will add that Leaders should not just be literal leaders but also important people.
I don't think it should be the SAME important people every time - but I am a fan of Jeanne d'Arc, Napoleon (war crimes not withstanding) for example.

Also I'm a Gandhi enjoyer. I don't really mind who they have as a leader, the point isn't really that they have to have been an actual elected president or some monarch - they just need to represent the nation, and bring with them a totally unique dynamic.

I can't think of too many examples as I'm not a history buff, but learning history through Civilisation is what makes it so fun and interesting - and the history of "leaders" besides the "real leaders" is still history! And compelling!

 

[Malexander]

Sorry, but that is not true.

Name one actual example of any machine-learning method being used to create a video game’s AI. You won’t be able to name any examples because there are none.

Claiming it’s “been around forever” doesn’t mean anything. It certainly wasn’t present in Black & White (released in 2002).

The point is that deep learning AI solutions exist and therefore can be implemented into a game. I do not know if these have been implemented before but that is an irrelevant argument because there is a first time for everything. If it is possible, it will likely be implemented at some point.

Machine learning in video games - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[pokiehl]

The point is that deep learning AI solutions exist and therefore can be implemented into a game. I do not know if these have been implemented before but that is an irrelevant argument because there is a first time for everything. If it is possible, it will likely be implemented at some point.

Machine learning in video games - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

That's not the point at all. Did you think I was disputing the notion that machine-learning is a thing and could potentially be used in a game by a developer? Obviously that'll be feasible at some point.

The point was that you specifically said this:

You are incorrect. There are many games that have deep learning AI solutions playing the game.

That is what I was disputing and that's the claim you walked back above.

The whole point of my comment was that anyone saying "Make the game have deep-learning AI!" isn't really any more helpful than saying "Make the AI better!". It is far from established that a Civ game with machine-learned AI would even be desirable in the first place, and there are good reasons that machine-learning has yet to ever be implemented by devs in a commercial release. It's not feasible yet (which was my original point), and the chances that any Civ game will be the first game to implement it are microscopic.

 

[Malexander]

That's not the point at all. Did you think I was disputing the notion that machine-learning is a thing and could potentially be used in a game by a developer? Obviously that'll be feasible at some point.

The point was that you specifically said this:

That is what I was disputing and that's the claim you walked back above.

The whole point of my comment was that anyone saying "Make the game have deep-learning AI!" isn't really any more helpful than saying "Make the AI better!". It is far from established that a Civ game with machine-learned AI would even be desirable in the first place, and there are good reasons that machine-learning has yet to ever be implemented by devs in a commercial release. It's not feasible yet (which was my original point), and the chances that any Civ game will be the first game to implement it are microscopic.

I did not ”walk back” from anything. Your original point was that it cannot be done. I said that it can be done and it has been done with games that are equally if not more complicated than Civilization. Clearly it is already feasible.

The possible reason why deep learning AI could not be done in game launch is that these AI agents require lot of data to train. This data does not exist at the launch of a new game but they will get the data after launch. There might be ways around this but I am no expert on the matter.

On the forums we can only express our thoughts and wishes about what we would like to see in the game. I personally would like to see this implemented because it would cut down turn duration and offer a more human like AI to play against.

You can of course disagree and I am sure you will.

 

[pokiehl]

Your original point was that it cannot be done.

Never once said that. My point, plain and simple, was specifically that it HASN’T been done. You did in fact walk back on your point that it’s already been implemented in commercial games.

Clearly it is already feasible.

It’s clearly not feasible since no commercial release of a game has ever implemented it.

I personally would like to see this implemented because it would cut down turn duration and offer a more human like AI to play against.

I don’t know, maybe it’d be good. My fear is it’d turn the AI into a frustrating, exploite-abusing min maxer. Civ isn’t chess or a competitive RTS.

I just don’t think most players actually desire a human-like challenger in the AI, with all the quirks that entails.

 

[Malexander]

So do I get this right: Something that has not been done in the past, cannot be done in the future even though the technology and means to do it exist?